May the Farce be with you
-
I wanted to write this as a seperate reply as it is not really related to the other thread of conversation: Mark Otway wrote: ...it implies that people need religion to live normal lives It is my firm belief that religions' roots were very much in this territory, regardless of who or why individual groups picked up on it and ran with it. So much of every major religion's core is based around the promise of a better life after this one, and how to cope with what this life will throw at you (pain, suffering, death, discipline, etc). Whilst I, like you, don't see the need for this in the civilisations we live in today, many many people are not in a similar position and religion plays as important a role in their lives as it did, say, to the workers during Egyptian times. Some people can't handle a cut finger, let alone accepting death and suffering for what it is, and religion offers them a way around it; a way to have a purpose. In every civilisation there are those that like to be told what to do, to have a plan to follow, and I would expect the idea of not having one scares the hell out of them. Your religion is very important if you have faith. I would never understimate that.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
You're absolutely right. I don't disrespect people who have a religious faith. However, they should finance it themselves. :D ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
-
David Wulff wrote: to religious people there is nothing more important than their faith To atheist people there is nothing less important than faith. So what the hell do I care as to whether I put 'Jedi' in a dumb census form? And why should my tax go to somehow fund somebody else's make-believe world? Your health service analogy doesn't stack up for the simple reason that whilst I may never need health treatment, I can't guarantee it. I might get knocked down by a bus on the way home tonight. So I'm prepared to fund others' requirements on the offchance that I might need them to return the favour in future. That's how society works. However, I will never need to use a church, or a mosque. So why the hell should I have to contribute towards somebody else who - by their own free will and choice - creates that requirement in their own life? David Wulff wrote: No it would not be, and even though I can see the irony there that just ridicules the whole essence of religious faith. I think you've got my point right there. :D ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
Mark Otway wrote: To atheist people there is nothing less important than faith Yes there is, there is prejudice which is the source of most of the evil in our world today. Faith never hurt anyone unless it was misplaced by prejudice. Even so, there is this thing called "respect". I respect a persons right to free speech, and that entails they can hold whatever beliefs they choose to -- and just because I hold opposing beliefs does not make theirs any less valid. Mark Otway wrote: dumb census form Census forms are not dumb. :mad: Mark Otway wrote: And why should my tax go to somehow fund somebody else's make-believe world? You should hold a British passport, therefore you are allowed immigration rights to a large part of the former Empire - pick a country with a policy you like and live their. And if people didn't lie, their would be less money spent on other people's make-believe worlds. Mark Otway wrote: Your health service analogy doesn't stack up It wasn't an analogy - it is the same thing. Mark Otway wrote: That's how society works Society works, both on a national and on a community based level, by the people telling others how they would like to live, and the community in turn provides the means. Any other way and it would not be a society; it would be an individualist state. Mark Otway wrote: However, I will never need to use a church, or a mosque. So why the hell should I have to contribute towards somebody else who - by their own free will and choice - creates that requirement in their own life? Two things here: a) You may never need to use a church, but you are not everyone. This falls back to compromise and respect for other people. If you don't offer it don't epxect others to give it back to you. b) Very few people actually make the choice to hold faith - the majority of times it is their way of life that introduces them to faith.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
You're absolutely right. I don't disrespect people who have a religious faith. However, they should finance it themselves. :D ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
Mark Otway wrote: However, they should finance it themselves. I agree up till that part. As a society we should provide for the needs our fellow people, and if thier needs dictate a religious belief then it is our place to abide by that and provide accordingly. *That* is where the respect comes in.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Mark Otway wrote: To atheist people there is nothing less important than faith Yes there is, there is prejudice which is the source of most of the evil in our world today. Faith never hurt anyone unless it was misplaced by prejudice. Even so, there is this thing called "respect". I respect a persons right to free speech, and that entails they can hold whatever beliefs they choose to -- and just because I hold opposing beliefs does not make theirs any less valid. Mark Otway wrote: dumb census form Census forms are not dumb. :mad: Mark Otway wrote: And why should my tax go to somehow fund somebody else's make-believe world? You should hold a British passport, therefore you are allowed immigration rights to a large part of the former Empire - pick a country with a policy you like and live their. And if people didn't lie, their would be less money spent on other people's make-believe worlds. Mark Otway wrote: Your health service analogy doesn't stack up It wasn't an analogy - it is the same thing. Mark Otway wrote: That's how society works Society works, both on a national and on a community based level, by the people telling others how they would like to live, and the community in turn provides the means. Any other way and it would not be a society; it would be an individualist state. Mark Otway wrote: However, I will never need to use a church, or a mosque. So why the hell should I have to contribute towards somebody else who - by their own free will and choice - creates that requirement in their own life? Two things here: a) You may never need to use a church, but you are not everyone. This falls back to compromise and respect for other people. If you don't offer it don't epxect others to give it back to you. b) Very few people actually make the choice to hold faith - the majority of times it is their way of life that introduces them to faith.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: Census forms are not dumb. Are too. :p David Wulff wrote: You should hold a British passport, therefore you are allowed immigration rights to a large part of the former Empire - pick a country with a policy you like and live their. Why should I move?!? Hardly fair, is it? David Wulff wrote: Very few people actually make the choice to hold faith - the majority of times it is their way of life that introduces them to faith. Religion is personal choice, whatever the circumstances. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ there. ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
-
Mark Otway wrote: However, they should finance it themselves. I agree up till that part. As a society we should provide for the needs our fellow people, and if thier needs dictate a religious belief then it is our place to abide by that and provide accordingly. *That* is where the respect comes in.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: As a society we should provide for the needs our fellow people, and if thier needs dictate a religious belief then it is our place to abide by that and provide accordingly. *That* is where the respect comes in. It can't work like that. As mentioned before, if I decide to worship money and prostitution, should I expect that society respect my beliefs and provide those things for me? Of course not. Respect has to go both ways. ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
-
David Wulff wrote: Census forms are not dumb. Are too. :p David Wulff wrote: You should hold a British passport, therefore you are allowed immigration rights to a large part of the former Empire - pick a country with a policy you like and live their. Why should I move?!? Hardly fair, is it? David Wulff wrote: Very few people actually make the choice to hold faith - the majority of times it is their way of life that introduces them to faith. Religion is personal choice, whatever the circumstances. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ there. ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
Mark Otway wrote: Are too. :p The census is certinaly not dumb - whether you are sticking out your tounge or not! ;P Mark Otway wrote: Why should I move?!? Hardly fair, is it? You don't have to move, but when you live in a community you should damn well expect to live by their rules. If I go to Texas and murder someone "ala passion" (or whatever the French call it) I would not expect to be tried in France and get off scot free. This again is where compromise and respect are needed. Mark Otway wrote: Religion is personal choice, whatever the circumstances. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ there. Rubbish! If a person has true faith in a religion then they will find it just as difficult to even conceive the possibility that they are wrong as you or I do to even conceive there could be a god.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
David Wulff wrote: As a society we should provide for the needs our fellow people, and if thier needs dictate a religious belief then it is our place to abide by that and provide accordingly. *That* is where the respect comes in. It can't work like that. As mentioned before, if I decide to worship money and prostitution, should I expect that society respect my beliefs and provide those things for me? Of course not. Respect has to go both ways. ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
Damn this thread is getting hard to follow - all the posts are in line with each other now! :-D Mark Otway wrote: It can't work like that. As mentioned before, if I decide to worship money and prostitution, should I expect that society respect my beliefs and provide those things for me? Of course not. I won't even begin to say how ridiculous *your* analogy is, again, but suffice to say you are arguing a total non-issue with that one. With regards to way societies work, I beg to differ entirely. The very definition of a community is "a group of people living in the same locality and under the same government, combining sharing, participation, and fellowship". Mark Otway wrote: Respect has to go both ways. And it does.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Mark Otway wrote: Are too. :p The census is certinaly not dumb - whether you are sticking out your tounge or not! ;P Mark Otway wrote: Why should I move?!? Hardly fair, is it? You don't have to move, but when you live in a community you should damn well expect to live by their rules. If I go to Texas and murder someone "ala passion" (or whatever the French call it) I would not expect to be tried in France and get off scot free. This again is where compromise and respect are needed. Mark Otway wrote: Religion is personal choice, whatever the circumstances. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ there. Rubbish! If a person has true faith in a religion then they will find it just as difficult to even conceive the possibility that they are wrong as you or I do to even conceive there could be a god.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: You don't have to move, but when you live in a community you should damn well expect to live by their rules. And those rules should never be questioned? Even if they're clearly dumb? ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
-
Damn this thread is getting hard to follow - all the posts are in line with each other now! :-D Mark Otway wrote: It can't work like that. As mentioned before, if I decide to worship money and prostitution, should I expect that society respect my beliefs and provide those things for me? Of course not. I won't even begin to say how ridiculous *your* analogy is, again, but suffice to say you are arguing a total non-issue with that one. With regards to way societies work, I beg to differ entirely. The very definition of a community is "a group of people living in the same locality and under the same government, combining sharing, participation, and fellowship". Mark Otway wrote: Respect has to go both ways. And it does.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: I won't even begin to say how ridiculous *your* analogy is, again, but suffice to say you are arguing a total non-issue with that one. Okay, here's a better example. If I am a satanist, how much respect do you think society will have for my religion then? Not much, I'd expect. What about if I'm in the UK or US, and proclaim myself as a member of Islamic Ji'had? The whole idea of respect for religious denominations is based on some spurious logic about a small group of people deciding what religion is acceptable and what isn't. It's illogical, irrational, and totally hypocritical. I am prepared to respect other peoples' religions, but I don't expect to have to fund them. I don't see that that's unreasonable.... And with that, I'm buggering off home. ;) ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
-
David Wulff wrote: You don't have to move, but when you live in a community you should damn well expect to live by their rules. And those rules should never be questioned? Even if they're clearly dumb? ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
Oh go on then - time for one more. :) Mark Otway wrote: And those rules should never be questioned? Even if they're clearly dumb? Dumb to you maybe, but not dumb to others. There is nothing really to question here without creating a prejudice against yourself, which is the last thing anyone wants.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
David Wulff wrote: I won't even begin to say how ridiculous *your* analogy is, again, but suffice to say you are arguing a total non-issue with that one. Okay, here's a better example. If I am a satanist, how much respect do you think society will have for my religion then? Not much, I'd expect. What about if I'm in the UK or US, and proclaim myself as a member of Islamic Ji'had? The whole idea of respect for religious denominations is based on some spurious logic about a small group of people deciding what religion is acceptable and what isn't. It's illogical, irrational, and totally hypocritical. I am prepared to respect other peoples' religions, but I don't expect to have to fund them. I don't see that that's unreasonable.... And with that, I'm buggering off home. ;) ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
Mark Otway wrote: The whole idea of respect for religious denominations is based on some spurious logic about a small group of people deciding what religion is acceptable and what isn't. It's illogical, irrational, and totally hypocritical. And that is entirely off the point. No small group of people is deciding what religion is acceptable and what isn't, the community you live in is deciding. One of the sideffects of a democracy is that people have the power - and rights - to control their own lives. If you live in a community, as I have already said, you live by its definition. You go on and respect and compromise yourself, but hold none and are prepared to give none for the basics of the community you live in. That is what is totally hypocritical. And yes, if your community was made up of satanists then your local authority would be obliged to provide core services for you - if not directly then indirectly. They need to know before they can make any changes though - this is one very important reason for the census, which is where politics and polcies cannot help. Mark Otway wrote: And with that, I'm buggering off home I said that quarter of an hour ago. :rolleyes:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Mark Otway wrote: The biggest problem with all this is that the assumption is being made that people are lying on their census forms. Based on what? Nothing other than the fact that 'Jedi' is the name of a character in a well known movie. That is not the issue at all. It is not for the National Census to decide what is or is not false information - they must by law treat everything included on a valid form as fact, hence the results, but is is up to you to make sure you do not lie. And for very good reasons which I feel I have already covered in this thread. Mark Otway wrote: Why should my taxes pay for the fact that somebody else believes they're a yogic flyer, or whatever? It's not like unemployment or disability benefit. The government has a duty to govern us, and that in turn requires them to provide (either directly or indirectly) the services we request. If 1,000 people in a particular area state they are Christian when in fact they are not, then as far as the government is concerned they have an obligation to provide religious services for these people. If you still don't buy it, think in terms of medicine instead. If 1,000 people in a particular area state they have a vision impairment then the government has an obligation to provide services accordingly. Public passages and services would need to be modified accordingly, and probably local planning authorities would adjust their conditions as well. These things *do* make a difference. Mark Otway wrote: The fact of the matter is that religious denomination is a subjective decision made by people. So really it shouldn't be on the census at all. I disagree here - it is a very important piece of information to know. If not to cater for individual communities based on the people who actually live there, then from a national pov statistically. Race is another equally important piece of information to know for much the same reasons.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Yeah but it gives us another chance to laugh at the Aussies. :-D Michael :-) Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
Michael P Butler wrote: Yeah but it gives us another chance to laugh at the Aussies. I like your way of thinking Michael :-) Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
Not quite, this one has different than the BBC link.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: Not quite, this one has different than the BBC link. Basically the same content though :-) Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
David Wulff wrote: Race is another equally important piece of information to know for much the same reasons. You're not suggesting that the government should treat people differently depending on their race?!? Kevin
Kevin Glover wrote: You're not suggesting that the government should treat people differently depending on their race?!? Not treat them differently - of course not - but they will need to provide different services that the different raced communities require.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
David Wulff wrote: Not quite, this one has different than the BBC link. Basically the same content though :-) Regards, Brian Dela :-)
Brian Delahunty wrote: Basically the same content though Only in that it mentioned the three words: Australia, 40,000 and Jedi. :|
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.